your CEO wants age 67
my CEO does not

I said many many times
over 65 only if limited up to 76 seat aircraft
PERIOD

 

So, it's not a safety thing?. I guess that would make it solely an economic thing?
So your side of the lobbying campaign is , " I think this hurts me financially, therefor I'm against it"
If you want more advertising bang for your buck, your message has to start with "safety and end with safety", otherwise you are in the same boat as the pro 67 guys which is, "money grubbing".

Note. You could try to extol "fairness" or, "You knew the age limit when you signed up, so get outta my seat" but that relies on no changes during one's career which seems a tad ignorant. So, stick with a SAFETY mantra in this "grey" area argument.

 

We get to have opinions about the subject, but we don’t really have a say. This is political and will shake out one way or another, but our opinions pro or con won’t carry much weight.

 

How's that safety argument doing when they continue to pass the same FAA medical you do, and continue to pass checking events like you do, and continue to do the job like you do, and the only difference is the calendar went past a date? Many would argue that keeping such high level experience in the seat is improving safety. They could also correctly add that it serves the nation by reducing the number of cancellations nationally. If they can leave and continue flying 135 jets then why not just stay where they are and alleviate some of the stress on the system.

In reality it harms nobody. The ones screaming "get out of my seat" get to work the extra two years at the end if they choose also. It's not like anybody is saying we're going to work two extra years, but you can't. So even the monetary argument is false. It boils down to the "I want it now" vs the "I want to stay." I'd say the "I want to stay" crowd have the age discrimination law on their side.
The question then becomes, will they make that same argument to push for age 70? There does have to be some cut off, but does it need to be performance driven, or just arbitrarily age driven? Should we require 3 medicals and 2 check rides per year from over 65 pilots? Should the over 65 pilot medical be more involved, to include hearing, and some stamina testing off a tread mill or bicycle? How about cognitive testing for over 65? Then the question becomes why make their medical harder? isn't the basic one good enough? if it's good enough to let you fly, why not him?

Yep, it's a complicated issue for sure. I tend to come down on the let them fly side, primarily because they can still go fly 135 carrying passengers for hire. If they can't carry passengers for 121 after age 65 then they shouldn't do it under 135 either... likewise, if they can fly after age 65 carrying passengers for hire under 135, then they should be able to do so under 121 too. I think that point, combined with the age discrimination aspect is going to give the age 67 folks the win. That and a whole lot of money from managements into re-election PAC's.

 

Would you like them in single pilot planes?

 

I don't think your points are necessarily wrong, but I look at it this way - you're arguing "why shouldn't we?"when the real argument is "why should we?" Who benefits? Senior pilots (financially) and the company's who would go to the ends of the earth to avoid sweetening labor contracts. If there was currently a debate about establishing a mandatory retirement age, your points would resonate better. But the argument is about why we should keep moving the established age up, and the crux of that argument is to help alleviate the pilot shortage driven by retirements. It's this looming phenomena that has granted a great deal of leverage to pilots all over, not just 121. The salary and QOL improvements that have grown out of this situation over the last 10 years is remarkable. I view pilots at the top of the payscale, arguing in favor of Age 67, as willingly and selfishly sacrificing that leverage at the expense of those below them. You're talking about throwing water on coals that haven't been this hot in 60 years. I think if the industry was stagnant right now, there wouldn't be as much passion. But it's the opposite, it's roaring. Companies are hoping for a recession or anything to cool it off and take the wind out of labor's sails. Age 67 helps them and hurts everyone else. Stop giving them ways around improving this job. They're using the greed of the individual to stave it off as long as possible. Stop helping.

 

No. Age 67 is coming. Remember, you can retire whenever you like, though.

 

"Stop helping the company undercut labor for your own benefit."
Good talk, pops.

 

I think you maybe misunderstood my non stated position. I said categorically that it is grey area issue. That means no black and no white facts, mostly just opinion. The opinions can be about safety, "fairness", age discrimination, money, DFR, and/or rule changes and the impact to one's career. . Each of the arguments have valid points to be made on both sides.

With ALPA's "One level of safety", it would be tough to institute a more rigorous medical for certain ages as well as being discriminatory. The younguns are afraid that that increased medical might filter down to them with the "one level of safety". Therefore, they are against enhanced medicals(which I think would be a good solution) but prolly a non-starter(rightly so). Consequently, the best argument to be made against age 67 (which are usually financial motivations) is safety. Can't have increased medical restrictions/testing even though most people(I suspect even you) realizes that as people age, certain abilities deteriorate. Therefore, to weigh in on age 67 claim "SAFETY", because there is no real solution for that consequently it's the closest to a black/white issue. Even the POTUS passes his medicals and "performs" his duties but leaves many scratching their head and wondering about the virtues of an age limit(polls show both sides of the aisle have concerns)

But I agree with you that everyone has the opportunity to go to 67 if they wish and are fit. If 67 were ever to pass, the best time would be when retirements are accelerating, hiring is booming, and the company is expanding. If 65 fell today, it would barely be noticed by current UAL pilots and those pilots would still be moving up, just not at the unsustainable, nose bleed pace of the last 2 1/2 years.

JMHO

 

Those "greedy senior pilots" spent 15 years with bankruptcy wages and work rules after serving out a B-scale. I get the impression that you think those senior greedy pilots have been making 400-500K a year for their 30+yeard career. They are "willingly and selfishly sacrificing the leverage" to get them up to your(newish pilots') level of career expectations after 15 years of having their a$$ handed to them.

The red part sounds like you are just as greedy as what you are accusing them of.

BTW. Do you work at UAL? If so, are you still in indoc? Might wanna scale back on comments like "Pops" just because you disagree with someone's POV. Sounds entitled(at least to me) and kinda like trolling.